beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 16,995,00 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from August 17, 2019 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From November 26, 2009, the Plaintiff leased 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,500,000 (2,00,000 for two years from December 13, 2009, monthly rent of KRW 2,50,000 for the following two years) to the Defendant of the fifth floor of the building in Changsi-si, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant store”).
Since May 2017, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract by serving a copy of the complaint in this case as the Defendant delayed payment of monthly rent.
B. On June 27, 2019, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to order the instant store.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 8, the purport of whole pleadings
2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the overdue rent claim No. 5, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from August 17, 2019 to the date of complete payment as requested by the Plaintiff, as the remainder of the amount obtained by deducting deposit deposit 50,000,000 from the above money, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 16,95,000 per annum from August 17, 2019 to the date of complete payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, as a result of the Plaintiff’s request, in full view of the purport of the entire argument as to the overdue rent claim No. 5. 5.
(1) Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019). As to this, the Defendant asserted that the claim for rent for the month after February 2019 is unfair, since the Defendant terminated its business on January 31, 2019 and left the instant store and thereafter used or used the instant store.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the instant store name guidance only with the statement of No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence above, the Defendant is obliged to restore to its original status when the lease contract is terminated.